Bullseyed:For an entirely different economic term. Nice try though. What you just said is tantamount to "the grass is green therefore the sky is not blue".

You're moving the goalposts. Anything marked up more than 15% over cost isn't overpriced by definition. A business's profit margin takes into account everything, not just the price you sell the good for minus the cost. It's entirely possible to mark a product up 200% and lose money doing it.

Treygreen13:Bullseyed: For an entirely different economic term. Nice try though. What you just said is tantamount to "the grass is green therefore the sky is not blue".

You're moving the goalposts. Anything marked up more than 15% over cost isn't overpriced by definition. A business's profit margin takes into account everything, not just the price you sell the good for minus the cost. It's entirely possible to mark a product up 200% and lose money doing it.

If you marked it up 200% and lost money, then you didn't assess your operating costs properly. Operating costs are included in pricing, which is why bread and milk go up when the price of gas goes up. They have to ship the product on trucks, so the price is tied in to the cost of gas.

You clearly don't know the difference between profit/contribution margin and gross/machine margin.

You're aware that, by that metric, essentially everything you could find at a store is overpriced. Right?

Most businesses that are operating at a 15% margin, won't be a business for very long.

I have to get special permission for any deal at less than 43%, and my boss frowns upon those.

What Fortune100 company do you work for so we can check out your Form - 10k and Form 10q?

Privately held, sport. Software services standard margin is usually right around 43%, regardless of the size of the company. Businesses that race to the bottom with "We will do it for free!" don't last long.

And you're also confusing a company's total profit margin (net income vs costs) with the margin for a specific product, which is yet another demonstration of your complete ignorance.

But lets go by your metric, anyway, just for the lulz. Oracle pulled down 24% this year. So did Adobe Systems. Microsoft pulled 29%.

Apple charges roughly 50% margin on hardware and they lose money on their software.- Report: iTunes costs $1.3 billon per year to run (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/06/13/report-itunes-costs-1-3billon-per-year -to-run/)

You're aware that, by that metric, essentially everything you could find at a store is overpriced. Right?

Most businesses that are operating at a 15% margin, won't be a business for very long.

I have to get special permission for any deal at less than 43%, and my boss frowns upon those.

What Fortune100 company do you work for so we can check out your Form - 10k and Form 10q?

Privately held, sport. Software services standard margin is usually right around 43%, regardless of the size of the company. Businesses that race to the bottom with "We will do it for free!" don't last long.

And you're also confusing a company's total profit margin (net income vs costs) with the margin for a specific product, which is yet another demonstration of your complete ignorance.

But lets go by your metric, anyway, just for the lulz. Oracle pulled down 24% this year. So did Adobe Systems. Microsoft pulled 29%.

Do you need any other demonstrations of your complete ignorance?

Yeah. Amazon and Walmart are very out of business. HP and Dell have only existed for a year or two. The tiny mom and pop shop you work for is not statistically significant.

Link to Oracle's tablet business? Cell phone business? We're waiting.

Microsoft's margin will drop to 5% if they transition into hardware instead of selling only software.

Bullseyed:MrEricSir: Bullseyed: MrEricSir: Bullseyed: MrEricSir: Bullseyed: MrEricSir: Funny that people still think Apple's products are overpriced. Guess it's easier to use 20 year old stereotypes than to compare prices.

Cost to make an iPhone5 = $325Selling price of iPhone5 = $700

Derp.

Oops, looks like you forgot to make a point. Derp indeed.

I guess you believe the iPhone5 is 20 years old then.

I guess you don't understand how supply and demand works, nor did you read my comment which specifically mentioned comparing prices.

Comparing prices has nothing to do with being overpriced. Overpriced is when the cost to create or value of the product is much less than the price it sells at. Anything with more than 15% margin is overpriced.

Bullseyed:Yeah. Amazon and Walmart are very out of business. HP and Dell have only existed for a year or two. The tiny mom and pop shop you work for is not statistically significant.

Link to Oracle's tablet business? Cell phone business? We're waiting.

Microsoft's margin will drop to 5% if they transition into hardware instead of selling only software.

And now you're back to comparing retail outlets with manufacturing. Keep moving that goalpost. I'm sure you'll find a home eventually.

Do you suppose Oracle and Microsoft and Adobe and Quallcom have the overall margins they have because they sold deals at *less* than 29%? Do you suppose that they *didn't* have to pay the HR lady and the janitor and the rent and the power bill out of that revenue? What do you suppose that would mean for the specific margin on the specific deals those companies put together in order to reach their net margin rates?

Treygreen13:Bullseyed: You clearly don't know the difference between profit/contribution margin and gross/machine margin.

I'm not the one confusing "overpriced" and "profit margin". Didn't you just say this:

Bullseyed: Overpriced is when the cost to create or value of the product is much less than the price it sells at. Anything with more than 15% margin is overpriced.

Why did you choose 15%?

Return on working capital. Less than 15% and you can generally make more money investing elsewhere. Each company has a different cost of capital, but 15% is generally a good baseline according to pretty much every business textbook.

Rent Party:Bullseyed: Rent Party: Bullseyed: MrEricSir: Bullseyed: MrEricSir: Bullseyed: MrEricSir: Funny that people still think Apple's products are overpriced. Guess it's easier to use 20 year old stereotypes than to compare prices.

Cost to make an iPhone5 = $325Selling price of iPhone5 = $700

Derp.

Oops, looks like you forgot to make a point. Derp indeed.

I guess you believe the iPhone5 is 20 years old then.

I guess you don't understand how supply and demand works, nor did you read my comment which specifically mentioned comparing prices.

Comparing prices has nothing to do with being overpriced. Overpriced is when the cost to create or value of the product is much less than the price it sells at. Anything with more than 15% margin is overpriced.

An object is worth what the market will bear to acquire it. You seem to think that something should be priced according to the cost to produce it, rather than the price people will pay to get it.

That is why you will always be poor.

You're confusing worth with willingness to pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willingness_to_pay

"In economics, the willingness to pay (WTP) is the maximum amount a person would be willing to pay, sacrifice or exchange in order to receive a good"

That's your free MBA lesson of the day.

You're an idiot. Your Wiki education just gave you "what the market will bear."

But please do keep it up, as I find it amusing. Also, go ahead and break out your 15% margin business plan and let us know how that works for you.

I am willing to put out ther that an object is overpriced when its price point is over the WTP point.

And I personally have sold items at over 50% price point and the customer danced away happy. Not overpriced.

The All-Powerful Atheismo:spawn73: You're factually incorrect. The Neo-geo wasn't intended for the mainstream at all. It was arcade systems intended for, well, arcades, hotels and the like.

They're talking about the home console, tard. There are two different versions.

I know what they were talking about mongol, and that version was released exactly because there was a demand. Arguing otherwise is moronic, since we're talking about something that has happened, and thus can be verified as fact.

Apple charges roughly 50% margin on hardware and they lose money on their software.- Report: iTunes costs $1.3 billon per year to run (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/06/13/report-itunes-costs-1-3billon-per-year -to-run/)

And that has what, exactly, to do with your original statement that any product that sells at more than 15% of the cost to create it is "overpriced"? Still waiting for that. Pricing points are established by companies for a myriad of reasons. Some products are even priced over that of a competitive product for the purposes of marketing.

Bullseyed:Return on working capital. Less than 15% and you can generally make more money investing elsewhere. Each company has a different cost of capital, but 15% is generally a good baseline according to pretty much every business textbook.

So... let me get this straight. Anything company that operates at 15% is selling goods at a price that is "overpriced" and anything under 15% is not worth investing in?

Bullseyed:Saiga410: am willing to put out ther that an object is overpriced when its price point is over the WTP point.

And I personally have sold items at over 50% price point and the customer danced away happy. Not overpriced.

So as long as Warren Buffet or Donald Trump is willing to buy 1 item from you, it isn't overpriced?

Nothing is overpriced then! Yay!

Can anyone find a cell phone or electronic gadget that sold zero units?

I work in a onezy twozy enviroment so it is what it is but all of the gadgets listed in the article sold some units but nowhere near the volume that similar products did... then when looked at the price you go OMG no way... clear indication that it was overpriced.

Apple products are selling like gangbusters, even though I they are priced well over what I am willing to pay, the general market disagrees with me.

Gig103:Bullseyed: Amusing that none of the items on there mention margin at all, which is the key factor in determining if something is overpriced.

I would disagree and define overpriced as compared to competitive products in the same market. That's why I vote for the iPad Mini. An iPad4 is $499, but an iPad Mini is $329. Smaller screen, lower resolution screen, slower processor, but 65% the cost of the full size, and 1.65x the cost of the Nexus w/ Android.

I would define it as relative to someone's wages, or intelligence. Mostly intelligence.Apple is laughably overpriced.

Bullseyed:Comparing prices has nothing to do with being overpriced. Overpriced is when the cost to create or value of the product is much less than the price it sells at. Anything with more than 15% margin is overpriced.

If only there were a way to determine if a good is over- or under-priced.

There's a difference between your product being "expensive" and "overpriced", at least in terms of the impression it gives the consumer. Consumers are simply uninformed about the product they're buying on many, many occasions. This leads to opportunities for companies to price their product over that of their competitor and add perceived value to their product.

For example, how much better is Rembrandt toothpaste over, say, Crest? Unless you happen to work for a company that sells toothpaste, you'd probably never know if Rembrandt is worth double (or even triple) the cost of a comparable product. But the consumer, if offered a free tube of either, would take the Rembrandt. Why? Because the premium pricing strategy has communicated a value in spite of the fact that if you took them out of the tubes the average person would never be able to tell the difference. And if people see Rembrandt toothpaste later at or near a price comparable to Crest they're more likely to buy it.

Pricing strategies and consumer behavior is a fascinating study. I tell every student I meet to take at least one class in Advertising when they're in college.

To get back on topic, I'm not implying that Apple products provide no benefits compared to their competitors. As was said earlier, the built-in monitor of the iMac is a selling point that I discount but might really matter to somebody else. But Apple certainly practices a pricing strategy that isn't just cost-plus pricing - there's some perceived value being artificially added through both the pricing and their marketing. Which is extremely slick, by the way.

There's a difference between your product being "expensive" and "overpriced", at least in terms of the impression it gives the consumer. Consumers are simply uninformed about the product they're buying on many, many occasions. This leads to opportunities for companies to price their product over that of their competitor and add perceived value to their product.

For example, how much better is Rembrandt toothpaste over, say, Crest? Unless you happen to work for a company that sells toothpaste, you'd probably never know if Rembrandt is worth double (or even triple) the cost of a comparable product. But the consumer, if offered a free tube of either, would take the Rembrandt. Why? Because the premium pricing strategy has communicated a value in spite of the fact that if you took them out of the tubes the average person would never be able to tell the difference. And if people see Rembrandt toothpaste later at or near a price comparable to Crest they're more likely to buy it.

Plain old table salt is the classic example of this effect, I think. It's NaCl, and has been since the big bang, but you see wide pricing based on brand identity.

Apple TV is $99, and it's actually not a bad deal.I've never rented a movie through the thing, but it's nice for streaming Netflix, plus some other free content.

It's pretty good if you are invested in the entire Mac ecosystem, and have devices where you can take advantage of Airplay and Airplay mirroring. For anyone else looking for a set top box for streaming media, you are probably better off with either a cheaper Roku or going full out and buying an Xbox 360 or PS3, which can not only handle media streaming but can also handle gaming and even Blu-Rays in the case of then PS3. For me personally, I prefer to spend a little more for something like the PS3, which can handle just about all of my media in one box with gaming as a bonus cherry on top.

Apple TV is $99, and it's actually not a bad deal.I've never rented a movie through the thing, but it's nice for streaming Netflix, plus some other free content.

It's pretty good if you are invested in the entire Mac ecosystem, and have devices where you can take advantage of Airplay and Airplay mirroring. For anyone else looking for a set top box for streaming media, you are probably better off with either a cheaper Roku or going full out and buying an Xbox 360 or PS3, which can not only handle media streaming but can also handle gaming and even Blu-Rays in the case of then PS3. For me personally, I prefer to spend a little more for something like the PS3, which can handle just about all of my media in one box with gaming as a bonus cherry on top.

Games plus Blu-Ray was how I justified my PS3. Then they added the other content sources and it got that much better. The only thing it doesn't do is record TV, which is why I keep my TiVo around.

I'm disappointed no one mentioned Flow being on the list. It's a spectacular game. In fact, in our design classes it was used as an example of how to design games. Simple mechanics, but with depth in play. Intuitive, but adapting.

Much of this list deals with "over rated, over sold" items. Actual insanely expensive stuff not included.First:The Star/Alto has to beat the Lisa by doing mostly the same thing, only earlier and more expensively.Second:Google the "kitchen computer". All the features of the "Iamrich" app, but more expensive (in its day).Third:Does the PDP-7 count? I'm pretty sure somebody bought one for personal use, but it was never marketed as such. Steve Wozniak told his father about his intention to buy one. His father pointed out it cost as much as a house. Steve decided he better solder something together on his own...

Nofun:Every mac ever has been overpriced, especially lately. Way back when, you could actually somewhat justify the price since they built their own hardware in house. Now, they're exactly the same thing as a Windows computer with a shiny aluminum case, their own proprietary OS, and a $500 markup.

It's a really, really, nice aluminum case, and the OS is the whole point. Since you can't buy the OS licensed for anything but a Mac, we don't even know how much of a Mac price is the OS. Even when they sold full installs of the OS in a retail box, the price of that box was technically an upgrade of your user license that came with your Mac hardware.

moothemagiccow:Yeah but the PS3 is a terrible media player for anything but netflix

Amazon Instant Video works fine for me, and Vudu looks gorgeous. H.264/MP4 encoded video works great as well. If you're like 95% of the people in the world, that's all you need. The 5% in the world that need to play back an MKV file that they borrowed from Kim Dotcom and encoded in a weird file format are unfortunately out of luck, but most corporations don't spend a lot of resources trying to cater to people that don't like paying for stuff, because they tend not to be a very profitable consumer segment.

Seriously, pirates. Can we please standardize on a file format? What is wrong with H.264? They are worse than hipsters in moving on to another format just as soon as every device starts native supporting the preferred format. First DivX/XviD, now H.264. I'm sure that as soon as MKV is supported on all devices, they'll invent some new marginally better container and codec just for the lulz.

Nem Wan:Nofun: Every mac ever has been overpriced, especially lately. Way back when, you could actually somewhat justify the price since they built their own hardware in house. Now, they're exactly the same thing as a Windows computer with a shiny aluminum case, their own proprietary OS, and a $500 markup.

It's a really, really, nice aluminum case, and the OS is the whole point. Since you can't buy the OS licensed for anything but a Mac, we don't even know how much of a Mac price is the OS. Even when they sold full installs of the OS in a retail box, the price of that box was technically an upgrade of your user license that came with your Mac hardware.

Also, every version of Mac OS you get is the same, unlike Windows where there's a lot of functionality that you lose on the home version. It's getting better with Win 8, but Win 7 was a huge mess because some key features like BitLocker required an expensive upgrade to the Ultimate Edition. I can understand things like joining a domain being left out of the home version, but who doesn't want to have the option for strong drive encryption?

Hell, OS X Server is now just a $20 upgrade of the base OS, so you can cheaply turn a Mac Mini into a small business server. How much is that going to cost you with a cheap PC?

They're talking about the home console, tard. There are two different versions.

I know what they were talking about mongol, and that version was released exactly because there was a demand. Arguing otherwise is moronic, since we're talking about something that has happened, and thus can be verified as fact.

Call me a mongol if you want but you're a farking tard for saying it was meant for arcades and hotels when it, being what they were quite specifically referring to, was a home console version.